[Reader-list] Rights of Artists to share of resale of Art works

[Lawrence Liang]

Hi All
 
We  were working on a review of Indian copyright law when we came upon a
very interesting thing: Droit de Suite.
 
 
Droit de suite (DDS) is the name given to a principle in law that gives
artists (specifically, the creators of artistic works) the right to a
percentage of SECONDARY sales of said artistic work. Essentially, lets say I
am Tyeb Mehta. I sell a painting in 1985 to X. X sells it in 2006 through an
auction house for a whopping big load of money. Conventional wisdom,
especially in the artistic community, is outrage - since Tyeb Mehta
apparently gets nothing since X owned the painting sold, not him.
 
Except, ever since 1994, India has a legal provision which entitles the
artist to upto 10% of the resale value, and the Copyright Board is empowered
to step in to decide what the percentage should be in case of a dispute.
 
Here's the section - see http://www.copyright.gov.in/cpract.doc, and look at
Section 53A: Resale share right in original copies. (the text is attached as
53A.doc)
 
No artist seems to know anything: and indeed, a whole bunch of prominent
people (inlcuding Raza, Tyeb) have been complaining (bizarrely) that if only
such a provision were to exist in Indian law it would be of great use to
them. See: 
 
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060514/spectrum/main2.htm
 
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060531/edit.htm#6
 
http://www.dnaindia.com/sunreport.asp?Newsid=1034599
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/02/07/bawb07.xml&s
Sheet=/arts/2005/02/07/ixartleft.html
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/02/07/bawb07.xml&
amp;sSheet=/arts/2005/02/07/ixartleft.html>
 
http://www.blonnet.com/2006/06/02/stories/2006060204361400.htm
 
http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/jun/24perfin.htm
 
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_23/b3987048.htm
 
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=6&art_id=19738&sid=8192
860&con_type=1&d_str=20060531
<http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=6&amp;art_id=19738&amp
;sid=8192860&amp;con_type=1&amp;d_str=20060531>
 
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2006-March/007002.html
 <http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060531/edit.htm>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/06/29/India/ccar
t29.xml
 
http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/aug/22spec.htm
 
http://in.rediff.com/getahead/2005/jul/26art.htm
 
 
Now the thing is, DDS has a specific history - even though the Indian govt.
apparently has no data to share on whether it has been used or not (casual
conversations with the Registrar of Copyright indicated that its rarely/
never been that a dispute has come up to the Copyright Board, which does not
mean that all artists are getting their due share, rather that no artist is
- on resale rights at least).
 
Here are the links to 2 documents that cursorily talk about DDS in the
Indian context, both worth reading:
 
http://www.ficci-frames.com/frames2001/Frames%202004/Knowledgebase2004/IPR.h
tm <http://www.ficci-frames.com/frames2001/Frames
2004/Knowledgebase2004/IPR.htm>
 
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001014/101438E.pdf
 
And here is a much broader UNESCO study on DDS itself, with a very good
explanation of how it works - useful to know, since for instance, private
sales (between the buyer and seller directly, without intermediaries) are
EXEMPT in the sense that the artist is not entitled to anything there - DDS
only applies when the sale is through a gallery, auction etc.
 
Lawrence / Achal